There in lies the problem with your logic and all others who support this kind of instrusion into women’s lives. Planned parenthood also provides prenatal care and other services to women. So woman who was experiencing pain as a result of a pregnancy, who can’t afford HEALTH

I personally have a right to buy guns, houses, cars, food, DVDs, beer, and upper-class healthcare. I can’t afford any of this so maybe we should tax people for it, even people who don’t believe in these things. This is not ridiculous at all.

It’s not just the woman’s own personal matter. When does human life begin? Science says conception. There’s just a few minutes difference between a horrible murder( partial birth abortion )and a wonderful gift for the child and those begging to adopt it. It’s also a public matter of the public having to pay for it. Abortion is Planned Parenthood’s biggest money maker- no wonder they avoid the “choice” of adoption. Last year they made 63 million in profits- why do they need help from the government? Other “non-profits” get by fine without government help. We have to cut spending if we don’t want to go back to the “Carter years”.

Actually, science says that life began with abiogenesis and, since that time, has continued in a nonstop process. Life doesn’t begin with conception, because there was life prior to conception; two gametes that fuse together to start the formation of a new organism are both alive, as are the parent organisms they derive from.

The real question is when does a developing human become an actual person.

Barring illness, catastrophe, or failure to sustain the mother’s life, those cells will certainly become an actual person some amount of time after conception. With no unusual action on your part, a child is born. Removing the embryo kills the possibility of that child and therefore effectively kills that child. You may not feel guilty about it, but it is still removing a life from existence.

Using your argument, however, you admit that the fetus at the beginning of a pregnancy is simply a cluster of cells that will “become an actual person some amount of time after conception.” With this kind of logic you could also say that any viable egg or sperm in the woman’s or man’s body is capable of becoming life and therefore should not be wasted. I do not think that the majority of pro-choice advocates would ever say that partial birth abortions or late term pregnancy abortions are okay. However, if a woman has taken all precautionary measures to not get pregnant (via birth control), or had her essential human rights violated and was raped, why shouldn’t that woman have the right to have a say over her life?

I believe that a developing human is an actual person is so at conception. This is why.

At the moment before birth, I hope you have no doubt that the child is an actual person, simply because it is now able to survive on its own (Someone tried to claim that babies can’t feed themselves, so the arguement does not count, and I say, “Are disabled people not actual people?”) The only difference for the child is the location of it. (In woman’s body versus Outside woman’s body) but this does not change the quality that it is an actual person.

Then I use a second arguement. The notion that a child is an actual person at one moment implicates that the child is an actual person a moment before, unless a significant event occured.

Between birth and conception, there exist no significant events. From my two points, you would come to conclusion that the child is a human being at all times during pregnancy.

Please explain to me how HR 3 is an example of smaller government. Subjecting a victim of rape or incest to an audit is an insult beyond words. If Catholics mount a campaign against tax benefits for plans that cover vasectomies or hysterectomies because they decide they are the same as birth control, will you attack those next?

Let me put this clearly as I can: my money is my money. You are not a doctor and thus have no credibility when deciding the necessity of an abortion or whether I can use my own money to obtain one for a spouse or family member. If I wanted to have every aspect of my life controlled by an out of touch leader, I’d become a Catholic.

You continue to disappoint me with your so-called representation. You cannot continue to claim to support smaller government and then co-sponsor a bill like this. It’s time for you to choose.

When will birth control be 100% effective? When will those slutty married couples stop having sex? When will men start taking responsibility for the “person” (by your definition) they have created? This wouldn’t be such a big deal if men were required to take some responsibility too. Why does the woman have to foot the entire bill for the LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE?

Why can’t people who don’t agree with abortion volunteer at a clinic that offers contraceptives? Why can’t the U.S. stop thinking that abstinence-only education is not an abysmal failure?

What makes you think that if the government can restrict access to a woman’s legal right to an abortion, thus requiring her to carry the child to term, that they can’t require women to have an abortion if she wants the child?

the free market already created an 100% effective birth control (excluding rape) and that is called the zipper.

Also, we have naver had an abstinence only education. There are barely any school teach solely abstinance-only educations in relationship to otherwise.

People have jobs, they can’t always work at places that offers contraceptives.

Also, if we are pro-life, why would we even allow the government to force women to have abortions?! We would be the first ones protesting! What we want is a for the government to recognized the civil right to life for those who are yet to be born, which would ensure the government would not be able to force women to have abortions. people were not forced to have slaves once it was no longer legal.

You really expect people to abstain? This isn’t just about some single woman who decided to have a one-night stand. This is about women who are married, and use PP as their provider for abortions.

As for forced abortion, if you can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term then we are only one step away from forcing women to have an abortion. The law works both ways you know.

People may have jobs but not everyone is in a position to afford $30 worth of birth control pills. Namely women.

I’m also pretty sure you’re not correct on abstinence-only education. I’m in Texas and we have the largest abstinence-only education in public schools in the country. We also have the highest teen pregnancy rate too. Do the math.

First off, the government isn’t forcing anyone to have an abortion whereas the pro-lifers want to remove the choice altogether.

Second, abstinence only is absolutely still being taught.

Third, abstinence is not the ultimate protection against pregnancy. That’s akin to saying “if you never drive, then you can never get into a car accident”. Sex is necessary to an intimate relationship. Telling people “NO YOU CAN’T HAVE SEX” is just ultra-religious nonsense.

Fourth, it astounds me how illogical this is to begin with. You want to not allow people to have abortions then complain about welfare – even though if more woman GOT abortions we would have FEWER PEOPLE ON WELFARE. It’s also astounding how you talk about the “right to life” but that “right to life” seems to be limited to the right to breath – after that you don’t seem to care and don’t want to give people support to actually live life.

REALY?! This issue has so many more connotations than just the most obvious one…the death of an unborn fetus. This is a social policy issue and our government has made a campaign of eliminating programs that would give these girls and women greater access to education and prevention of these unwanted pregnancies. I do not condone abortions but there is so much more to consider here…..

I disagree. I don’t feel that preventing funding for abortions is a violation of liberty. I view it to actually be congress stepping up to prevent people from paying for abortions who would otherwise not want to.

I saw your comment regarding the proposed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: “Ridiculous!! When will the GOP stop trying to pry into women’s personal matters?” I thought I’d give you my view as well.

Please not, that I do NOT intend to aggressively refute your view, but rather provide my dissenting opinion as it currently stands. Please not that I will be HAPPY to hear YOUR SIDE of the argument since I am a fledgling when it comes to the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

My view:

An abortion is a personal matter. That I agree with, but an abortion becomes public when that woman uses, intentionally or inadvertently, tax payer dollars. If a tax payer disagrees with abortions he should not have to pay taxes, which might pay for the very thing he abhors: a doctor performing an abortion on a woman, who was not raped or who will not die if she keeps the baby.

Abortion is murder, not a woman’s right, not an issue of privacy. When people are being killed, it becomes everybody’s business. I support this bill. No one should be given the right to decide to lives and who’s dies for any reason. A woman does not have the right to kill her neighbor, why does she have the “right” to kill her child? Abortion should be outlawed forever.

Top-Rated Comments

OpenCongress allows anyone to follow legislation in Congress, from bill introduction to floor vote. Learn more about issues you care about and connect with others who share similar views.
OpenCongress was founded by the Participatory Politics Foundation in 2007 and operated as a joint project with the Sunlight Foundation until May 2013.

Founded in 2006, the Sunlight Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for open government globally and uses technology to make government more accountable to all. Visit SunlightFoundation.com to learn more.

Like this project and want to discover others like it?

Join the Sunlight Foundation's open government community to learn more.